Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 20:34:41 -0700, Kitchen Man <nannerbac@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 21:28:49 -0500, operator jay wrote:
[snip]
If you have definitions of AC and DC handy from IEEE or someone, stick
them on here. I'd say that the (apparent) widespread disagreement means
that, functionally, there is no single pervasive definition for these
terms, but it would be interesting to see if some of these bodies have
published definitions. It would be really interesting if they had
definitions, and they didn't quite agree with one another, or if they
were "wishy-washy".

Didn't see this response, so piggy-backing my reply.

There are literally hundreds of references on the web about DC, AC and
Transient Analyses. Browse some of the simpler overviews, and you
will see that the mathematical differences are clearly defined, and
that's what it's all about. The math determines the signal type. It
is my belief that the widespread disagreement is due to participants
that just like to argue a lot.
Click to expand...
---
No, they don't. ;^)

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer
 
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:40:55 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
Since this a technical forum and we _do_ have ground rules, I believe

...

While the boiling point of water is dependent on pressure, the
freezing point, I believe, is not.

At least, not to a great extent. I don't have any data to support
that position, but I'd love to see some, if it's out there.

What happened to the ground rules you mentioned? Being correct
isn't one of them?
Click to expand...
---
Hey, asshole, I'm not the one who has to take his foot out of his
mouth every time he writes what he thinks is going to redeem him from
his previous abortive attempt at cogency.
---

Tell us more about AC, so we can laugh again. Then come back to
this, for more!
Click to expand...
---
We don't need _me_ writing about AC to get a laugh, all we have to do
is watch you flailing around doing that waffle dance you do so well.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer
 
In article <pan.2005.06.15.00.10.38.743770@fjernmig.taarnkammeret.dk>,
Christian Treldal <chris@fjernmig.taarnkammeret.dk> wrote:
And if you gave 10Ł your component pusher will be laughing all the way to
the bank;-)
Click to expand...
'Audio' grade 4700uF 63v are 4 gbp at Maplin.

--
*Snowmen fall from Heaven unassembled*

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
 
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:49:11 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

LOL, instead of grasping at straws you're now grasping for the
coattails of someone who knows what he's talking about, and you're
using that "Exactly" crack to make it seem like what you've been
positing all along has finally been iterated by someone with some
credibility.

What's the matter John, are you bitter that several people, who do
understand the theory and practice, have said you are wrong...
Click to expand...
---
Not at all. I'm always grateful when someone takes the time to
correct me and show me where I went wrong, since that increases my
store of stuff I know is right.

But when a self-important know-nothing windbag like you comes along
making baseless proclamations and spouting opinions like they were
gospel it _does_ annoy me.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer
 
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 22:32:48 -0400, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net>
wrote:

John Fields wrote:
(snip)

While the boiling point of water is dependent on pressure, the
freezing point, I believe, is not.

At least, not to a great extent. I don't have any data to support
that position, but I'd love to see some, if it's out there.

If you are willing to consider extreme conditions, not only does the
freezing point change, but there are many ice phases, each
structurally distinct and with temperature and pressure boundaries.
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html
Click to expand...
---
Interesting.

Thanks, John!

BTW, from another thread and just as an aside, I went over to my
friend's sign shop and checked some known-good neon sign transformers
using the same meters I used to check the ones I have here, and it
turns out my transformers are defective. :-(

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer
 
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
---
Not at all. I'm always grateful when someone takes the time to
correct me and show me where I went wrong, since that increases my
store of stuff I know is right.
Click to expand...
John, you can't have it both ways. You say the above is what you
do, but what you actually *do* is the next paragraph:

But when a self-important know-nothing windbag like you comes along
making baseless proclamations and spouting opinions like they were
gospel it _does_ annoy me.

John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Click to expand...

When will that begin?

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com
 
"Don Bowey" <dbowey@comcast.net> schreef in bericht
news:BED47A76.5B46%dbowey@comcast.net...
On 6/14/05 10:58 AM, in article 3h8k5lFfsh3mU2@individual.net, "Don
Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote:

Don Bowey wrote:
No other esoteric, mindless
definitions are needed even though the terms AC and DC may be
misnomers.
They are historic and work very well.

Don


The only tiny problem is that the definitions are wrong.

As with many historic terms, they may be off the mark by today's
understanding, but they are not necessarily wrong.

For example, I have no problem using the term DC even when there is no
current (flowing). Is that bad that I can assume DC is valid for static
and
dynamic states? It didn't cause me any problem when I first began to
learn
about electricity. How about we assume the term DC is a set with many
subsets? That beats defining DC in a manner that says if there is a
constant, never-ending load on a EMF, then it is DC, but if it is EVER
interrupted, then it never was DC but was some form of AC?

The more I learn, the more I find fault with some definitions. I find
more
fault (pointing the finger nowhere specific), however, with people who
want
to redefine things before they have studied long enough to understand what
they are doing.
Click to expand...
Go on folks, this is all very bloody important.

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'q' and 'invalid' when replying by email)
 
triple point ring a bell?

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:45rua15vf6p6nrmk81jr3cbf9717jq1aiu@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:21:21 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:


The idea that water boils at 100C and freezes at 0C, without
some mention of pressure, has little meaning. Water can "boil"
at 0C too.

---
As John Popelish remarked, boiling is only possible if the medium in
which the boiling is occurring is a liquid, so if the water has turned
into ice at 0°C, sublimation is the mechanism which water molecules
will use to evaporate from their parent structure.

Since this a technical forum and we _do_ have ground rules, I believe
we generally agree that, unless otherwise specified, standard pressure
is defined as 760 millimeters of mercury and standard temperature is
defined as zero degrees celcius.

While the boiling point of water is dependent on pressure, the
freezing point, I believe, is not.

At least, not to a great extent. I don't have any data to support
that position, but I'd love to see some, if it's out there.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer
Click to expand...
 
Most of my Pioneers have a setup mode where you can select 200 kHz or
50 kHz tuning steps. This unit looks modern enough to have something
similar.

I suggest trying to find some service documentation if the procedure
is not listed in the standard documentation.

Thomas
 
John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:49:11 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

LOL, instead of grasping at straws you're now grasping for the
coattails of someone who knows what he's talking about, and you're
using that "Exactly" crack to make it seem like what you've been
positing all along has finally been iterated by someone with some
credibility.

What's the matter John, are you bitter that several people, who do
understand the theory and practice, have said you are wrong...

---
Not at all. I'm always grateful when someone takes the time to
correct me and show me where I went wrong, since that increases my
store of stuff I know is right.

But when a self-important know-nothing windbag like you comes along
making baseless proclamations and spouting opinions like they were
gospel it _does_ annoy me.
Click to expand...
Er..the gospels are the biggest pile of erroneous nonsense one can come
up with. Its all about those imaginary beings, that can do anything, be
everywhere at once, knows everything etc...


Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
 
John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> writes:

John Fields wrote:

BTW, from another thread and just as an aside, I went over to my
friend's sign shop and checked some known-good neon sign transformers
using the same meters I used to check the ones I have here, and it
turns out my transformers are defective. :-(

Sorry to hear that. I was surprised that I couldn't simply Google
this. But the elusive neon sign transformer voltage current curve
remains uncaptured.
Click to expand...
No curve but some info:

http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/sam/laserclp.htm#clpnstc

--- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ Mirror: http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/
Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Sites: http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/REPAIR/F_mirror.html

Note: These links are hopefully temporary until we can sort out the excessive
traffic on Repairfaq.org.

Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is
ignored unless my full name is included in the subject line. Or, you can
contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs.
 
John Fields wrote:

BTW, from another thread and just as an aside, I went over to my
friend's sign shop and checked some known-good neon sign transformers
using the same meters I used to check the ones I have here, and it
turns out my transformers are defective. :-(
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear that. I was surprised that I couldn't simply Google
this. But the elusive neon sign transformer voltage current curve
remains uncaptured.
 
"b" <reverend_rogers@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118840491.065062.300590@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


David FitzGerald wrote:
It's an KV24LS35.
I had a guy around to look at it, said it would cost about Ł100 for
the parts and Ł70 for labour, and even then there is another part
that could be broken which he would not be able to tell if it was or
not until he replaced the first one. So it would be Ł170 to see if it
worked, and possibly another Ł80.
A bin job, basically.
So, now to either get an ultra cheap crapo TV, or a TFT which I will
put into the bedroom when the plasma fund matures :)

Don't get any cheapo set unless you wan to to go shopping again in 16
months time.
Click to expand...
Here we go with the crap advice again! Go and look up The Sale Of Goods Act
(visiting RETRA's website would be a good idea as well) and you'll soon see
why any TV should last considerably longer than sixteen months, and the
legal remedies you have should it not do so.

get a DECENT tech to look at it, dont get a call out, take it in
somewhere.
Click to expand...
Now that IS good advice.

if repaired it will probebly long outlive any cheapo turkish
shit from the supermarket.
Click to expand...
"Probably"? If the "decent" tech comes back with a figure over Ł100 I'd
still go for one of the cheapie sets in the knowledge that if it goes wrong
within the next four years or so I'd have some comeback - something you
"probably" won't get with a repair.

--
Unlock Your Phone's Potential
www.uselessinfo.org.uk
www.thephonelocker.co.uk
www.gsm-solutions.co.uk
Click to expand...
 
In article <45rua15vf6p6nrmk81jr3cbf9717jq1aiu@4ax.com>,
jfields@austininstruments.com says...
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:21:21 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:


The idea that water boils at 100C and freezes at 0C, without
some mention of pressure, has little meaning. Water can "boil"
at 0C too.

---
As John Popelish remarked, boiling is only possible if the medium in
which the boiling is occurring is a liquid, so if the water has turned
into ice at 0°C, sublimation is the mechanism which water molecules
will use to evaporate from their parent structure.

Since this a technical forum and we _do_ have ground rules, I believe
we generally agree that, unless otherwise specified, standard pressure
is defined as 760 millimeters of mercury and standard temperature is
defined as zero degrees celcius.

While the boiling point of water is dependent on pressure, the
freezing point, I believe, is not.
Click to expand...
The tripple-point of water is ~4C, so the freezing point is dependent
on pressure, at least somewhat. Here is a phase diagram for water,
which shows that the freezing point isn't quite vertical:

http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/c123/phasesdgm.html

At least, not to a great extent. I don't have any data to support
that position, but I'd love to see some, if it's out there.
Click to expand...
It's *ALL* out there. Not *ALL* is correct though. ;-)

--
Keith
 
Don Lancaster has written many articles for electronics magazines. Also
regular columns for several electronics magazines (probably still
running). One of his books (CMOS cookbook) was a standard for many
years. You might be able to learn something from him too.

Bud--

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:41:47 -0700, Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net
wrote:

He [Don Lancaster] has tutorials? You've got to be kidding.

John
Click to expand...
 
Sam Goldwasser wrote:
John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> writes:


John Fields wrote:


BTW, from another thread and just as an aside, I went over to my
friend's sign shop and checked some known-good neon sign transformers
using the same meters I used to check the ones I have here, and it
turns out my transformers are defective. :-(

Sorry to hear that. I was surprised that I couldn't simply Google
this. But the elusive neon sign transformer voltage current curve
remains uncaptured.


No curve but some info:

http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/sam/laserclp.htm#clpnstc
Click to expand...
Thanks, but this info is more confusing than clarifying.

The table of data at reduced voltage looks pretty linear, and if the
normal operating curve is not based on any nonlinear elements, then
this should extrapolate to something pretty close to the actual curve.

Table excerpted:
" Regulation - Between an open and a short circuit, the core and
winding construction results in a quasi-constant current
characteristic over much of this range. I did a test on a 12 kV, 30 mA
transformer at reduced voltage (I didn't have any way of providing a
variable load at full output so I used a Variac to set the no load
output voltage to 1,000 VAC):
Load Output Voltage Output Current
-------------------------------------------
Open 1,000 VAC 0.00 mA
R 560 VAC 1.43 mA
R/2 350 VAC 1.79 mA
R/3 250 VAC 1.91 mA
R/4 195 VAC 1.99 mA
R/5 160 VAC 2.04 mA
Short 0 VAC 2.10 mA"

But a few paragraphs later we read:
"(From: John De Armond (johngd@bellsouth.net).)

Let me answer several questions at once. First, a 15 kV,
60 mA transformer will produce 60 ma almost up to
its rated voltage. The transformer is designed
to be a constant current device, to supply whatever
compliance voltage is needed to push the 60 ma
through the load. The 60 ma is nominal short-circuit.
All magnetic transformers made for use in the US
are designed for continuous use at no more than
80% of the short-circuit current.

I never actually sat down and plotted it out but I do
know this: With 1 foot of neon tubing on a transformer
(about 500 volt drop), it drives 60 mA. With over 60
feet of tubing on the tranny (more than specified),
it still outputs about 50 to 53 mA.
That's fairly constant current."

But 80% of short circuit current would be 48 mA, and the current did
not fall that far, even with an excessive 60 feet of tubing as a load.
So the various parts of this story do not add up. The low voltage
test indicates linearity, while the full voltage test indicates
current regulation. The specified operating current does not match
the measured current.

So I am still confused.
 
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 05:44:34 -0700, Kitchen Man wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 03:36:15 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

It
is my belief that the widespread disagreement is due to participants
that just like to argue a lot.

---
No, they don't. ;^)

Look, this isn't an argument, it's just contradiction!
Click to expand...
No, it's not! ;^j
--
The Pig Bladder from Uranus, still waiting for that hot babe to ask
what my favorite planet is...
 
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:32:21 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:
John Fields wrote:
....
But when a self-important know-nothing windbag like you comes along
making baseless proclamations and spouting opinions like they were
gospel it _does_ annoy me.

Er..the gospels are the biggest pile of erroneous nonsense one can come
up with. Its all about those imaginary beings, that can do anything, be
everywhere at once, knows everything etc...
Click to expand...
Hey! Let's not knock the imaginary!

Where would electronics be today without sqrt(-1)? ;-)
--
Rich

for further information, please visit http://www.godchannel.com
 
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:23:39 -0500, Bud <remove.BudNews@isp.com>
wrote:

Don Lancaster has written many articles for electronics magazines. Also
regular columns for several electronics magazines (probably still
running). One of his books (CMOS cookbook) was a standard for many
years. You might be able to learn something from him too.

Bud--

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:41:47 -0700, Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net
wrote:

He [Don Lancaster] has tutorials? You've got to be kidding.

John
Click to expand...
Oh no, I thought someone was referring to The Phantom's tutorials.

Don always makes eminent sense. I have his Active Filter Cookbook
right here.


John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top